|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
President Bush on ANWR: “I urge members of Congress to allow this remote region to bring enormous benefits to the American people.”
What enormous benefits is he talking about? Does anyone know? Is he talking about what is thought to be a 2-3 cent (yes, cent) decrease in the price of gas two decades from now? Is that the enormous benefit he's talking about? Some of you guys were all for more domestic drilling. Maybe you could explain why it's worth drilling in a national wildlife refuge in order to save a couple cents a gallon a couple decades from now. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
It's more along the lines of China is getting ready to begin drilling several more miles offshore and will theoretically be tapping the same bag o'booze. So the "Save the Refuge" love-in holds about as much water as the "enormous benefits" Panderfest 2008. For me, the benefit is, "Might as well be US digging in our backyard than the neighbor." |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters  |
Yeah Heck, that pristine frozen wildrerness will be saved for future generations of people who have no means of travel or heat. But hey think how beautiful Key Largo and Hyannis Port will be when littered with wind turbines and Dallas looks like San Paulo. It'll be great. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
So far the best explanation for the enormous benefits of drilling in ANWR is ...because the Chinese might if we don't? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Obviously the Chinese aren't going to drill in ANWR. Or was it that since a Chinese oil company is exploring off the coast of Cuba we should drill in Alaska? That doesn't make much sense either.
What are the "enormous benefits" of drilling in ANWR? If it's about saving 75 cents on a barrel of oil, or 2-3 cents a gallon, two decades from now, what's the point? Other than being good for the oil companies. What's the tradeoff Americans are going to get for the cost of opening up a wildlife refuge to drilling? Come on. You guys were all talking about how much oil we have here in America, and how we could solve our own energy problems if we'd only have the courage to drill. Or maybe you guys were wrong about that... |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
I honestly doubt "solve" was ever used. "help" sure. And if the move to alternative fuel sources is as big and instant as you and I hope, single sourcing the petroleum from USA only will have a lot more benefits than several cents/gal. In the same way that buying a hybrid saves you with the total amount of gasoline used. If the "little bit" we get from USA can power our hybrids or whatever the future promises, then a significant chunk of our foreign policy can be re-written. Again, pricier than 2-3 cents a gallon.
12mi = international waters. The Chinese don't have to break open the Alaskan Pipeline to "steal" oil from Alaska. Unless you're convinced there is only one way into the ground up there. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Leg, I think you can sleep safely knowing that the Chinese are not going to set up shop in international waters and somehow suck the oil out of ANWR.
|
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
As for the other argument, I don't think you have that right. You can't single source oil, if what you mean is that we'd keep it all and not sell it to anyone else, like our own private stash. It doesn't work that way.
These are the figures of Bush's own Energy Department - 75 cents off of a barrel of oil in 2025, or around 2-3 cents off of a gallon of gas. In 2025. You may not like that this is the paltry reality of drilling in ANWR, but this is the paltry reality of drilling in ANWR. And that's not going to rewrite our foreign policy one bit. Is anyone going to be able to make a good argument for this? I certainly haven't heard one. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
So we do nothing that doesn't provide immediate and enormopus benefit? OK. Aren't you the one proposing a "carbon tax" that may cripple US lifstyle enough to produce more efficient cars sometimne in the next decade or two? (Which would not reduce the worlds CO2 emissions by a measurable standard?) And has one of your arguments been "well we have to do something!!!!!" Let's call drilling in ANWR "Change we can believe in!" Better now? WSS |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
It doesn't work that way now, you're correct. But what I was suggesting was complimentary to the alternative energy sources. e.g. the carbon tax gets implemented and within 5 years all US citizens are driving Priuses to the voting booth to stick Barack back in office for "saving the day." Using silly figures, prior to the Messiah, our Oil consumption was 100 barrels a day. Now, in the year 4 OO (Of Obama), consumption is 1 barrel a day, thanks to the Prius, etc. ANWR's capacity is 1-2 barrels a day. We tell OPEC to suck it. Reliance on foreign oil is now zero, and by resetting the calender, we've done away with that archaic "A.D." crap.
That does sound silly. But not as silly as stealing man-hole covers off the street to sell to scrap yards because the price of steel is so high. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Ha. I'll take it by the anger and sarcasm in both those posts that you don't have a real argument. Both of you guys seem pretty upset that this is all ANWR is going to give us oil-wise because, in the absence of a good case for drilling in ANWR, you both went directly to going after Obama, who hasn't had anything to do with this thread.
Leg, I just don't think your analysis makes any sense. The numbers don't make any sense. Oil is going to be our primary source of energy for the foreseeable future, and even if everyone switched to a more fuel efficient car we're still not going to be able to tell OPEC to go shove it. And Steve, you're not even trying to analyze anything. You're just taking shots at me, shots that make no sense and do nothing to explain why drilling in ANWR is a good idea. Can anyone explain the "enormous benefits" of drilling in ANWR? How about the small benefits? You could even try pitching it as a way to conserve the Alaskan oil industry if you want to. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Tupa, help them out.
|
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
True enough Heck. And you're bellyaching because Bush suggested it. I think the technology's already in the tubes and while we wait I say drill in ANWR and get the shale oil out west and the offshore oil that Chinas taking and the natural gas the canucks are piping out of the lakes. Punishing the working man won't make things better. Shit, Heck, I'm not as well off as you or Shep but I make OK dough for a saloon singer. 80 bucks a week for gas instead of 40 won't kill me. But it sure does f(ck with my tenant who probably makes less than ten bucks an hour. And he doesn't wind up paying taxes after all is said and done so don't try to snow me with that. And that doesn't even include his heating bill. So for those on the dole or rich enough to eat the extra cost who cares? The guy who works for a living? Well he'll get lip service at least. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
No, I'm against it because it's counter to what I believe is the right thing to do.
And nobody is "punishing the working man" here. Nobody's motivation to keep ANWR closed to drilling is to punish working people. In fact, I'm the one who was saying that the best case for drilling is as a jobs program for Alaskans. The benefits to the rest of America are miniscule, as we've seen. And no one has refuted that yet. So no one can make a good argument for what these "enormous benefits to the American people" are? Or even "moderate benefits"? I guess this isn't as beneficial to the American people as you all first proposed, huh? That whole "We have enough oil to be energy independent if we'd stop listening to these left wingers and start drilling!!" argument doesn't seem to make any sense anymore. I can't even et anyone to make that argument anymore. It seems the fact that left-wingers or "enviros" are against it is enough to make you for it. It seems from your posts that this is the bet answer you can come up for drilling in ANWR is ...spite!! |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
And come on, heck - no one was suggesting a Jed Clampett-esque trade off of instant independence as soon as the first auger hits the shale in ANWR. To suggest that somebody was, is just as ridiculous as my "Year of Obama" jab. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
That was referring back to the people who started this discussion, not you.
And I called Obama on the windfall profits tax, too. I think everyone did. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
From the Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum:
"In an era of $4 gasoline, is it political suicide to advocate policies that would send that price even higher? Or is it better to go into full pander mode and insist that there's no "cap" in your cap-and-trade plan; that a gas tax holiday is sound public policy; that offshore drilling is suddenly a great idea; and that maybe you'll take a second look at drilling in ANWR? John McCain pretty clearly believes in the pander approach, but what about Barack Obama? He seems to be sticking to his energy guns so far, but there's a lot of people who think this is a political loser. The public is pissed, this storyline goes, and it doesn't want airy wonkery. It just wants lower gas prices. But here's an alternative suggestion: go the full monty in the other direction. Make a major speech in the "no easy solutions" vein and attack McCain for panicking and pandering. The basic pitch would be this: in the long tem gasoline prices are going to go up no matter what we do. But this can happen in one of two ways. First, it can happen by simply doing nothing and allowing demand to increase — as it will after the initial shock of $4 gas wears off and people go back to their old driving habits. This will lead to higher wellhead prices for oil, and the beneficiaries will be OPEC and big multinational oil companies. Second, it can happen via a concerted effort to raise the price of energy via a cap-and-trade plan. This will reduce demand and lead to stabilized oil prices. The net price of oil will still go up thanks to the cost of auctioning off emission permits, but the additional money goes into American coffers, where it can be used to improve mass transit; fund clean energy research; reduce the impact on the poor; and help offset other taxes. I'm not the kind of person who can figure out a way to explain this that appeals to ordinary voters. But Obama is. The basic question is, who would you rather see benefit from higher oil prices: Saudi sheikhs or the American treasury? Because that's pretty much your choice." |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
gotcha. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Here's another odd take.
Here's Republican House Speaker Marco Rubio, making sense: "For anyone to represent that someone drilling off the coast in Florida is going to lower gas prices here or anywhere in this country is disingenuous and a flawed argument. Oil drilling could take 10 years before any oil is pulled out of the ground, and there are a large number of leases held by oil companies that are not being exploited now. We can't say we need more until we've exploited those." And then this is a bit odd: "If our beaches are going to be polluted and oil is going to end up on our shores, I'm against it. But I do believe that we have an obligation to safely exploit our natural resources in this country and I believe we have the technology to accomplish that." Okay, obviously if anyone could accurately predict that a specific project would end up leaking a few million gallons of crude oil on to state beaches, like in Santa Barbara County in 1969, or in Prince William Sound in 1989, or the spill on the North Slope last year, any of the smaller spills that happen just about every time a hurricane comes through the Gulf Coast, then everyone would be against that project. But that's not the point. Anytime you drill you drill offshore you run the risk of oil ending up on your beaches. Technology changes and improves, but we obviously haven't mastered it to the point where we have removed this possibility. Therefore, the risk of such a spill has to go into the calculus of whether or not you drill. Saying you wouldn't be for more offshore drilling if oil ended up spilling on state beaches is like saying "I wouldn't marry Susan if I knew in advance that she was going to sleep with my best friend." Well, of course you wouldn't. Unless you were into that type of thing. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Well you kid yourself the public cares about the environment. Every time gas jumps the polls turn to drilling. I asked this before to no avail. There are two gas pumps. One is completely clean burning and it's 5 bucks. The other is the same stuff we burn today. It's two-fifty. What do you think the sales ratio would be? WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Finish that sentence, Mr. No Distinction Man...
Drilling everywhere will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by... ...By so little that it's essentially meaningless, as evidenced by how little it would affect world supply, and price. It would make no tangible difference in the amount of foreign oil the US imports and consumes. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | CLEVELAND SPORTS FORUM | ||
| Servlet | eve2da013 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Groupee" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Designed by: CreAtens